1. In my reading today of Randall Short’s The Surprising Election and Confirmation of King David, Randall took on the view that the History of David’s Rise in I Samuel 16-II Samuel 5 was an apology for David being a deserter from Saul, an outlaw, a Philistine mercenary, and complicit in the deaths of Saul, Abner, and Ishbaal.
What I got out of today’s reading was that Randall holds that there’s no real basis for such a view: it’s based on not believing the biblical account and attributing to David certain bad motives, when David might have had other motives for doing what he did. For example, some scholars who treat the History of David’s Rise as an apology don’t agree with the biblical account that Saul had an evil spirit and pursued David out of jealousy, and so they conclude that Saul was mad at David for trying to usurp the throne, even though there’s nothing in the biblical account to suggest that David sought to do so; actually, we see the opposite. So where are those scholars getting such an idea? For Randall, they appear to be making stuff up.
The following passage on pages 116-117 is interesting. Remember, those who argue that the History of David’s Rise was an apology maintain that the document talks about embarrassing details of David’s life because they were well-known, and the author is seeking to explain them away. Randall states:
In keeping with this logic, one might assert, in a similar fashion, that Joseph’s experiences in “the pit” and in an Egyptian prison were “too well known to be suppressed” and “would surely have inspired public disapprobation”; and “vehemence of its apologetic denial” that Joseph committed any crime worthy of such treatment suggests that he was guilty, but the narrator has recast suspicion, instead, on his brothers and Potiphar by characterizing them as unjust. Most biblical scholars would recognize that this misses the point of the narrative of Joseph’s suffering. There is a strong interest throughout biblical literature in the fate of figures and groups who flee from someone or something (e.g., famine) and/or are exiled or displaced, sometimes temporarily and sometimes permanently, and who often increase in wealth or strength during their time abroad. Some of the variations of this theme or “type scene” include Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden; Cain’s life as “a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth”; Adam’s flight from Canaan into Egypt, and later into Gerar; Jacob’s flight from Esau and, later, his leaving Laban; Jacob and his family’s flight from famine into Egypt; Moses’ flight from Pharaoh into the land of Midian; Samson’s sojourn among the Philistines; David’s flight from Absalom; Absalom’s flight from David to the king of Geshur; Shimei’s servants’ flight to King Achish; Jeroboam’s flight from Solomon to King Shishak; Elijah’s flight from Ahab; and Jonah’s flight from God.
Is David’s flight to the Philistines in the History of David’s Rise because it’s well-known and the author wants to explain it away? Or is it mentioned as a literary device, a “type-scene” that we encounter in other Bible stories—and, I will add, in other ancient Near Eastern tales as well (see here, under number 4)?
It’s interesting how different scholars have sought to explain this type scene in the Bible. Some say that the Hebrew Bible has such an emphasis on going to another location and prospering because it was written during Israel’s exile, when Israel was away from her own homeland. Others try to see Jeroboam as the background for some of the tales about a hero’s flight, for Jeroboam himself fled to Egypt to escape a king’s wrath, as Jacob and Moses go to another location to flee somebody’s anger. The implication here may be that the stories have a Northern Israelite origin and were written to support Jeroboam.
But the plot-element of flight occurs even in Egyptian literature. Maybe it’s a literary device that allows us to see how a character grows when he’s thrust into unfamiliar circumstances.
2. In my reading yesterday of Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah, Jacob Neusner discusses apocalypticism in first century Palestine. According to this worldview, in the heaven were angels, demons, and gods. In the underworld were the dead and demons. YHWH was in the highest heavens. The lower gods helped those who “knew how to call on them” (30), as well as taught women magic. Demons caused diseases, plagues, famines, earthquakes, wars, and other disasters, and the true God, YHWH, could use them to inflict punishment. Demons also “had their human agents who could do miracles so as to deceive many.” The hope of Jewish apocalypticism was that God in the end “would destroy or remodel the present world, and create a new order in which the Jews, or at least those who had followed his law, would have a better life.”
My impression is that Neusner is giving us this information so we can see how the Mishnah related to apocalypticism. But this summary helps me to understand better the claim that the Gospel of Mark is apocalyptic: Jesus is bringing the Kingdom of God by binding the demons, as he exorcizes and heals diseases.